FTFA: "In a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was," Obama said. "He started the EPA, started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has helped keep our air and water clean."Obama's comments came in response to O'Reilly asking him if he was "the most liberal president of all time." Obama also listed Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as presidents who were also more liberal than him.

Kinda. Nixon's effort to consolidate and systematize existing offices was overtaken in ways he did not favor but could not stop since Congress overrode his veto in 72. But yeah, I would consider FDR, LBJ and Truman probably more "liberal." Of course, times and the landscape have changed a lot in political discourse since then, so its a bit apples to oranges.

fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

Diogenes:It would have only been truly unfair if he didn't know what he was walking into. We all knew what he was walking into. I get doing this as a means to appear fair. But this little fiasco only proves it inevitably does the opposite.

Somacandra:Diogenes: It would have only been truly unfair if he didn't know what he was walking into. We all knew what he was walking into. I get doing this as a means to appear fair. But this little fiasco only proves it inevitably does the opposite.

Headso:fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

I'm working off the assumption you think anyone who could be defined as right wing is also a kook.

I'm not sure that's true. What "right wing kook" from MSNBC would you tap for that interview? What "right wing kook" from CNN? NBC? CBS? Really if you want to get an interview with someone that won't pitch you softballs you have to go with the opposition. And at least with Bill you have someone who is honest enough to tell you exactly where he stands on every single topic you are about to discuss. As he tells people over and over again (well he use to, it's been a while since I watched) his program is an opinion based program. If the Administration was caught off guard by any of this that is a failure of his staff. Which wouldn't be the first time they got caught flat footed.

Headso:fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Headso: fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

I'm working off the assumption you think anyone who could be defined as right wing is also a kook.

I'm not sure that's true. What "right wing kook" from MSNBC would you tap for that interview? What "right wing kook" from CNN? NBC? CBS? Really if you want to get an interview with someone that won't pitch you softballs you have to go with the opposition. And at least with Bill you have someone who is honest enough to tell you exactly where he stands on every single topic you are about to discuss. As he tells people over and over again (well he use to, it's been a while since I watched) his program is an opinion based program. If the Administration was caught off guard by any of this that is a failure of his staff. Which wouldn't be the first time they got caught flat footed.

Bill was a repugnant, and disrespectful dick to Obama. He'd ask a specific question, then get a specific answer, then ask for a general answer, and get that, too. Pretty sure the idea was "Get my specific question on tape, then ask for a more vague answer, and splice the specific question to make it look like the vague answer was given to that. Then playback the edit on my show and biatch about how I couldn't get a straight answer."

'What newspapers or magazines do you read?" asked by a journalist with years of credentials.- Unfair 'Gotcha' media.

'Are you the most liberal president ever?' And 'Much of the country believes Benghazi is a scandal. How much of a scandal is it?' asked by an 'opinion' show host with years of experience as a 'conservative' blowhard.- Legitimate news questions. Stop complaining.

mrshowrules:Headso: fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

Roger Ailes pulls the strings and the Republican party serve him.

That's the thing about modern 'conservatives' For all their whining and petulant wailing about 'freedom', bless them, they really DO need to be told what to think and what to do. They have an inherent NEED for someone to 'be in charge' of their lives. Some of them will say 'God's in control of my life'. But that's not true. It's their carefully selected priest or pastor interpreting a book for them. The priest is telling them what to do. Some will say "I'm in command of my own ship! I owe nothing to anybody!" Which of course isn't true either.

With conservatives, there's always a deep-seated need for someone to tell them what to think, and what to do. This is why they come off sounding so combative in debates. Because they don't know WHY they believe what they believe, only that someone they admire said that their world view is right. They can't explain their ideas in any kind of logical way, other than 'well, you must not know what you're talking about!"

Why can't it be both? I'm on the left - he's absolutely right, Fox News has been wildly unfair to him. Also, he's a giant wuss. I would have loved to see him come out and attack O'Reilly for all of the unfair shiat he has done over the years. I'm sure The Daily Show would have been happy to give him some material.

It figures that that commie RINO O'Reilly would undersell the jobs created by the Keystone pipeline. 42,000? Hardly! Fox says it would create 500,000 to 1 million permanent, high paying jobs. He should have really nailed the president on that one, but instead he just gives him the kiddie gloves. Typical liberal media!

lennavan:Why can't it be both? I'm on the left - he's absolutely right, Fox News has been wildly unfair to him. Also, he's a giant wuss. I would have loved to see him come out and attack O'Reilly for all of the unfair shiat he has done over the years. I'm sure The Daily Show would have been happy to give him some material.

Teufelaffe:lennavan: Why can't it be both? I'm on the left - he's absolutely right, Fox News has been wildly unfair to him. Also, he's a giant wuss. I would have loved to see him come out and attack O'Reilly for all of the unfair shiat he has done over the years. I'm sure The Daily Show would have been happy to give him some material.

He forgot to bring Luther. (NSFW language)

Clinton didn't start getting very combative until after he left office, either. While in office, I imagine there are a host of considerations when making the decision to 'go on the attack' or not. You need support from everyone, and if you belittle and verbally trash the conservatives, you're probably not going to get many votes, nor get much of your agenda through congress. (They are a highly sensitive lot, easily offended, and skin about as thick as graphene)

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Headso: fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

I'm working off the assumption you think anyone who could be defined as right wing is also a kook.

I'm not sure that's true. What "right wing kook" from MSNBC would you tap for that interview? What "right wing kook" from CNN? NBC? CBS? Really if you want to get an interview with someone that won't pitch you softballs you have to go with the opposition. And at least with Bill you have someone who is honest enough to tell you exactly where he stands on every single topic you are about to discuss. As he tells people over and over again (well he use to, it's been a while since I watched) his program is an opinion based program. If the Administration was caught off guard by any of this that is a failure of his staff. Which wouldn't be the first time they got caught flat footed.

Everyone who is right wing and would have a shot at interviewing Obama has the same fundamentally broken opinions so yeah they are all kooks but that's not the point. The point is as a democrat why give ad revenue to an activist arm of the republican party? Does Obama also regularly donate to the RNC?

Teufelaffe:lennavan: Why can't it be both? I'm on the left - he's absolutely right, Fox News has been wildly unfair to him. Also, he's a giant wuss. I would have loved to see him come out and attack O'Reilly for all of the unfair shiat he has done over the years. I'm sure The Daily Show would have been happy to give him some material.

He forgot to bring Luther. (NSFW language)

That's hilarious I hadn't seen that yet.

Obama: Now on the domestic front.Translator: I AM NOT A MUSLIM YOU CRACKAS

One telling comment from the Prez about Fox News. He asked "What are you going to do when I'm gone?" How can life as we know it continue when I'm no longer leader of the free world? Fox News was #1 when he was community organizing and it'll be #1 when he's making a fortune on the lecture circuit.

Cat Food Sandwiches:One telling comment from the Prez about Fox News. He asked "What are you going to do when I'm gone?" How can life as we know it continue when I'm no longer leader of the free world? Fox News was #1 when he was community organizing and it'll be #1 when he's making a fortune on the lecture circuit.

"Fairness" isn't the way to attack Fox News, or AM talk radio, or any part of the right-wing noise machine.

Attack it on accuracy. Show how often it's wrong about stuff, and refer to the studies showing its viewers are misinformed about current events.

Above all, attack it on its corrosive effect on peoples' souls, take them to task for making people crazy and miserable. We all have anecdotes about this effect. I'm hoping that social scientists look into this one of these days and either confirm or deny that a steady diet of overly partisan news sources makes people unhinged.

serpent_sky:Seriously... aside from his stupid line of questioning, the most amazing thing was, he was just cutting off the President of the United States left and right. That's just unprofessional.

I would say the most amazing thing was that Obama fell for that crap again. Remember when Hannity interviewed him and did the EXACT SAME THING? Quit talking to these Fox morons. They're not there for an interview, they're just going to try to bully and talk over you, because that's what their audience wants to see.

Yes, the IRS targeted Tea Party Members to reduce their impact on the elections

Yes, we knew the Web site had issues, they just ran out of time. We figured once we got user load applied after 10/01 we can pin point the issues and resolve them in a few days.. Was not sure it was this bad and required this much code change. If it worked properly after we did some quick fixes, the people who had their old plan dropped would have just logged in and got Healthcare insurance from the website. Its not a plan.. just bad timing. Did we expect it to be fixed quickly, Yes. Did we expect a quick resolution of bug fixes, Yes. It will be around for the long run and once all the features fixed. It will achieve all its goals.

Cat Food Sandwiches:One telling comment from the Prez about Fox News. He asked "What are you going to do when I'm gone?" How can life as we know it continue when I'm no longer leader of the free world? Fox News was #1 when he was community organizing and it'll be #1 when he's making a fortune on the lecture circuit.

While I disagree with you that he should flat out lie in order to get Fox to shut up, your ideas are stupid for another reason too:

RaiderFanMikeP:Yes, we changed talking points on Bengazi to win election

Who made that decision? Who else was involved? Who else knew about this conspiracy? What actually happened that day? We need more hearings to get to the bottom of this.

RaiderFanMikeP:Yes, the IRS targeted Tea Party Members to reduce their impact on the elections

How long has this been going on? Who else was targeted? Mitt Romney paid taxes, how much was he personally targeted during the election? What about Republican donors? I met this Republican guy who got audited once, was that retribution for voting Republican? How many people know about this and were in on the decision? We need hearings, subpoenas, testimony and a lot more info to get to the bottom of this.

RaiderFanMikeP:Yes, we knew the Web site had issues, they just ran out of time

Why weren't you prepared? Why didn't you start earlier? Why didn't you delay the start? What other issues are there that you're not telling us about? And so on...

What you fail to understand, or are pretending to not understand while you advocate he admit things that are not true, is that the goal of Fox News bringing these things up is not to get to the bottom of them or seek resolution. The goal is to continue to parrot them over and over and over to constantly remind their viewers of how bad he is. There will never be a day on Fox News where they do not point out a controversy of President Obama, no matter how hard they have to search and how low or petty they have to go.

Headso:Everyone who is right wing and would have a shot at interviewing Obama has the same fundamentally broken opinions so yeah they are all kooks but that's not the point.

That is the point. The sides have gotten to the point where they can't believe that someone could possible be as smart as them, and disagree with them. If they don't come up with the exact same answer to the exact same problem they are stupid and wrong. We all see the same problems but we have differing answer to what to do. That's healthy. I'm not sure I want everyone in Washington agreeing with each other.

Headso:The point is as a democrat why give ad revenue to an activist arm of the republican party? Does Obama also regularly donate to the RNC?

It's the highest rated news network. If he wants to reach the maximum amount of people he has to go there. Also I respect him for going into a hostile interview. If he goes on almost any other news program he could just save everyone's time and just put out a press release.

And I can't find the ratings for the interview. Right before the Super Bowl? I doubt it raked in more people that the average O'reilly Factor.

Well, if I took you down there then I'd want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first thing I'd do... yeah, we'd check into the room, and we would order up some room service and uh and you'd definitely get two wines into you as quickly as I could get into you I would get 'em into you... maybe intravenously, get those glasses of wine into you...

You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda soap up your back... rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water... and um... you know, you'd feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda put my arm -- it's one of those mitts, those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it... and I would put it around front, kinda rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard... 'cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs...So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business...

Not that President Scaredy-Pants McBuckles would address a known sexual predator that way; Lord knows he doesn't want to hurt anybody's feewings.

Did O'Reilly cut his mic and call him a pinhead while he was unable to respond?

Honestly, the longest you can speak uninterrupted on O'Reilly or any of those Fox opinion shows is about ten seconds which is something of a problem if your ideas are more complex than a bumper sticker slogan. I watched Bill "interview" some atheist during Fox's war on christmas marathon and the guy was at most able to get ten words out before being interrupted. Bill would ask a question and then interrupt in the first three seconds of the answer.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Headso: Everyone who is right wing and would have a shot at interviewing Obama has the same fundamentally broken opinions so yeah they are all kooks but that's not the point.

That is the point. The sides have gotten to the point where they can't believe that someone could possible be as smart as them, and disagree with them. If they don't come up with the exact same answer to the exact same problem they are stupid and wrong. We all see the same problems but we have differing answer to what to do. That's healthy. I'm not sure I want everyone in Washington agreeing with each other.

What's the right answer to Benghazi and the keystone pipeline having to go through the same opposition as any potentially dangerous project and Obama being the most liberalist president ever in the history of the universe? There's nothing there at all as far as policy positions or ideas so don't act as if this was some kind of great interview that wouldn't have been if Obama didn't go on foxnews.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:It's the highest rated news network. If he wants to reach the maximum amount of people he has to go there. Also I respect him for going into a hostile interview. If he goes on almost any other news program he could just save everyone's time and just put out a press release.

it's the highest rated 24 hour news network which means less than a third of one percent of the population watches it, the regular networks regularly crush them in numbers, so isn't going to reach the maximum people on foxnews. And again you're pushing this narrative where this was some quality interview, have you bothered to watch it or read the transcript?

HMS_Blinkin:serpent_sky: Seriously... aside from his stupid line of questioning, the most amazing thing was, he was just cutting off the President of the United States left and right. That's just unprofessional.

I would say the most amazing thing was that Obama fell for that crap again. Remember when Hannity interviewed him and did the EXACT SAME THING? Quit talking to these Fox morons. They're not there for an interview, they're just going to try to bully and talk over you, because that's what their audience wants to see.

It's tradition now. Every year the sitting president gives an interview to the network that airs the Superbowl.

If he refused then "OMG THAT THERE OBAMMER IS ASCAIRT OF BILL O'RIELLY!"

I have no problem with Bill O'Reilly asking President Obama what he thought were tough questions. I just don't like the political right's whining when a reporter asks conservative politicians tough questions, like what newspapers they read.

The President "The closest react team was 48 hours a way. That was a error of judgement on the part of the military. I regret the loss of life and we'll do better in the future"

Headso:the keystone pipeline having to go through the same opposition as any potentially dangerous project

The President "I understand this would lead to tens of thousands of jobs. I'm doing everything I can to cut red tape and supply jobs and energy to the American people".

And it's not a dangerous project. Moving fuel by pipe line is the safest way to move it. You want to keep moving it by boat?!

Headso:it's the highest rated 24 hour news network which means less than a third of one percent of the population watches it, the regular networks regularly crush them in numbers, so isn't going to reach the maximum people on foxnews

Still more than any other network news station. And you don't get converts preaching to the choir.

We need to abandon it completely. Although I catch myself still falling into partisan nonsense from time to time, I'm trying to pull myself out of that frame. It just doesn't work, and even if one side is worse than the other, it's still not productive to quibble over it. Issues are issues and they have answers, everything gets muddied with an us vs them mentality.

The President "The closest react team was 48 hours a way. That was a error of judgement on the part of the military. I regret the loss of life and we'll do better in the future"

it's important to you that the president is asked about Benghazi conspiracy theories by Bill Oreilly, you feel that is part of a quality interview?

I guess that is why we could be speaking past each other here if your bar for a good interview and a good representation of conservative ideas was this interview, I could see why you feel Obama should go on fox news. Where I believe the interview was just right wing talkingpoints and conspiracy theories and feel what's the point in donating your image and time to increase their ad revenue so they can keep manufacturing republican talkingpoints and conspiracy theories.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:And it's not a dangerous project. Moving fuel by pipe line is the safest way to move it. You want to keep moving it by boat?!

You mean the Keystone XL pipeline which is to shorten the existing route and won't actually change the means by which the oil is transported through the US?Wow, look at all those water routes they'll be avoiding by cutting through Montana instead of Manitoba and North Dakota.

Obama should have responded:"But that's the narrative your network and the Republican party has to push, isn't it? Just as Kerry, Gore, and Clinton were the most extreme liberal to ever seek office. The fact is, Bill, that no matter whom is the next person to be the Democratic party nominee for president he or she will automatically be the most extreme liberal to the far right regardless of their actual views or documented record. As will the person after that. And the person after that. You're entire narrative depends on convincing that the current person is the most extreme unAmerican candidate ever."

Headso:it's important to you that the president is asked about Benghazi conspiracy theories by Bill Oreilly, you feel that is part of a quality interview?

You asked me what I thought the right answer was! I answered. And yes I do think it's part of a quality interview. If he'd have answered it in the way I suggested it would have been 2 minutes of the interview and they could have moved on. Too many people are too rapped up in this. He'll be answering questions about it for the rest of his life.

Headso:I guess that is why we could be speaking past each other here if your bar for a good interview and a good representation of conservative ideas was this interview, I could see why you feel Obama should go on fox news. Where I believe the interview was just right wing talkingpoints and conspiracy theories and feel what's the point in donating your image and time to increase their ad revenue so they can keep manufacturing republican talkingpoints and conspiracy theories.

I dont think it was a great interview. And truth be told I don't know how you give the President of the United States a great interview! How do you afford the President the honor and respect due to the PoTUS and not turn it into a softball or just another speech?Now I understand why the President did it. I understand why Bill did it. I'm just not sure why we watched it.

And did it add to their ad revenue? Do they charge more for that time? Did they see an increase in viewership?

You mean the Keystone XL pipeline which is to shorten the existing route and won't actually change the means by which the oil is transported through the US?[keystone-xl.com image 640x828]Wow, look at all those water routes they'll be avoiding by cutting through Montana instead of Manitoba and North Dakota.

Well that was just a statement on pipe lines in general being dangerous. We've only had one oil pipe line rupture (two natural gas and both in OK). Very safe way to move the product. Much better than tanker (both truck and boat)

s2s2s2:Bill was a repugnant, and disrespectful dick to Obama. He'd ask a specific question, then get a specific answer, then ask for a general answer, and get that, too. Pretty sure the idea was "Get my specific question on tape, then ask for a more vague answer, and splice the specific question to make it look like the vague answer was given to that. Then playback the edit on my show and biatch about how I couldn't get a straight answer."

The Stealth Hippopotamus:I created this alt just for this thread: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And it's not a dangerous project. Moving fuel by pipe line is the safest way to move it. You want to keep moving it by boat?!

You mean the Keystone XL pipeline which is to shorten the existing route and won't actually change the means by which the oil is transported through the US?[keystone-xl.com image 640x828]Wow, look at all those water routes they'll be avoiding by cutting through Montana instead of Manitoba and North Dakota.

Well that was just a statement on pipe lines in general being dangerous. We've only had one oil pipe line rupture (two natural gas and both in OK). Very safe way to move the product. Much better than tanker (both truck and boat)

A Cave Geek:mrshowrules: Headso: fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

Roger Ailes pulls the strings and the Republican party serve him.

That's the thing about modern 'conservatives' For all their whining and petulant wailing about 'freedom', bless them, they really DO need to be told what to think and what to do. They have an inherent NEED for someone to 'be in charge' of their lives. Some of them will say 'God's in control of my life'. But that's not true. It's their carefully selected priest or pastor interpreting a book for them. The priest is telling them what to do. Some will say "I'm in command of my own ship! I owe nothing to anybody!" Which of course isn't true either.

With conservatives, there's always a deep-seated need for someone to tell them what to think, and what to do. This is why they come off sounding so combative in debates. Because they don't know WHY they believe what they believe, only that someone they admire said that their world view is right. They can't explain their ideas in any kind of logical way, other than 'well, you must not know what you're talking about!"

Here is an article about when Micheal Steele (chairman of the RNC) apologized to Rush Limbaugh. In case there were any doubt who is in charge. I would say Ailes has consolidated the bulk of authority since then.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Headso: fox news is an activist group for the republican party, why even bother legitimizing them by being interviewed on there? He could have easily been interviewed on any network by any right wing kook as some kind of special.

I'm working off the assumption you think anyone who could be defined as right wing is also a kook.

I'm not sure that's true. What "right wing kook" from MSNBC would you tap for that interview? What "right wing kook" from CNN? NBC? CBS? Really if you want to get an interview with someone that won't pitch you softballs you have to go with the opposition. And at least with Bill you have someone who is honest enough to tell you exactly where he stands on every single topic you are about to discuss. As he tells people over and over again (well he use to, it's been a while since I watched) his program is an opinion based program. If the Administration was caught off guard by any of this that is a failure of his staff. Which wouldn't be the first time they got caught flat footed.

Haven't watched msnbc in a while is morning joe still a thing on that channel, cause scarboro would certainly qualify as a right wing kook in my book.

And didn't cbs have back away from a benghazi story that turned out to be nonsense. They could unsuspend the reporter that ran the story and get her to interview him (buying into the benghazi scandal narrative makes you a right wing kook by default doesn't it?)

Cnn and nbc though i don't know, cnn is just terribul (i know that is misspelled you're supposed to read it in Cleveland Brown's voice).

The Stealth Hippopotamus:lennavan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Headso: the keystone pipeline having to go through the same opposition as any potentially dangerous project

The President "I understand this would lead to tens of thousands millions and millions of jobs.

I mean, if you're gonna lie you may as well go big. Who can be against millions of jobs?!

Now you're just being silly. 20-30k is a good estimate and that's just the ones working on the actual lines. Support jobs will also be created or maintained.

Your own source casts doubt on the veracity of studies commissioned by those lobbying for the pipeline to be built:

This study is the perfect example of why long-term employment predictions from a distinct energy project are unreliable. The estimates are based on the idea that the pipeline will create permanently stable oil prices which will foster overall economic growth. However, there is no indication the pipeline would contribute to oil price stabilization.

Additionally the tens of thousands of construction jobs are only there for about 2-3 years, the duration of the construction. The pipeline may be viable for other reasons, but to pretend it's an important project for job creation is a bit of a stretch.

/Still think it may be better than increased rail transport as an alternative.

JusticeandIndependence:Cat Food Sandwiches: One telling comment from the Prez about Fox News. He asked "What are you going to do when I'm gone?" How can life as we know it continue when I'm no longer leader of the free world? Fox News was #1 when he was community organizing and it'll be #1 when he's making a fortune on the lecture circuit.

UrukHaiGuyz:Your own source casts doubt on the veracity of studies commissioned by those lobbying for the pipeline to be built:

Well is does point out a couple of problems and area where they fudged. But like any good projection it knows it's limitation and says as much. I think that is a credit to the article.

UrukHaiGuyz:This study is the perfect example of why long-term employment predictions from a distinct energy project are unreliable. The estimates are based on the idea that the pipeline will create permanently stable oil prices which will foster overall economic growth. However, there is no indication the pipeline would contribute to oil price stabilization.

Additionally the tens of thousands of construction jobs are only there for about 2-3 years, the duration of the construction. The pipeline may be viable for other reasons, but to pretend it's an important project for job creation is a bit of a stretch.

No government project or program is going to create a forever job. Granted the high spike in over all jobs would be short lived however there would be some jobs that would last for decades. And at the end we would have to pipeline to show for the spending. Which really wouldn't be that much from the government, all they need is a few signatures

Reminds me of the guys who let their women talk them into appearing on Jerry Springer and then were all shocked when the twisted shiat happened. You should know what you are getting into when you agree to do the show.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:UrukHaiGuyz: Your own source casts doubt on the veracity of studies commissioned by those lobbying for the pipeline to be built:

Well is does point out a couple of problems and area where they fudged. But like any good projection it knows it's limitation and says as much. I think that is a credit to the article.

UrukHaiGuyz: This study is the perfect example of why long-term employment predictions from a distinct energy project are unreliable. The estimates are based on the idea that the pipeline will create permanently stable oil prices which will foster overall economic growth. However, there is no indication the pipeline would contribute to oil price stabilization.

Additionally the tens of thousands of construction jobs are only there for about 2-3 years, the duration of the construction. The pipeline may be viable for other reasons, but to pretend it's an important project for job creation is a bit of a stretch.

No government project or program is going to create a forever job. Granted the high spike in over all jobs would be short lived however there would be some jobs that would last for decades. And at the end we would have to pipeline to show for the spending. Which really wouldn't be that much from the government, all they need is a few signatures

.That's true. There is not much from the government other than the assumption of risk. The cost of cleanups. The loss of tax revenue for land.

But look what there is to gain..........an eyesore and profit for Canada.

I probably would have done the same thing to W had I been given the chance, but it's very disrespectful to hammer the President with questions about why he sucks so bad. Sure, Obama needs to stop sucking so bad, but using the media to put yourself on a pedestal for spitting in his face is not cool.

Yes, the IRS targeted Tea Party Members to reduce their impact on the elections

Yes, we knew the Web site had issues, they just ran out of time. We figured once we got user load applied after 10/01 we can pin point the issues and resolve them in a few days.. Was not sure it was this bad and required this much code change. If it worked properly after we did some quick fixes, the people who had their old plan dropped would have just logged in and got Healthcare insurance from the website. Its not a plan.. just bad timing. Did we expect it to be fixed quickly, Yes. Did we expect a quick resolution of bug fixes, Yes. It will be around for the long run and once all the features fixed. It will achieve all its goals.

Yeah, there's no better way to get Fox to shut up that to tell them that they're completely right on everything. Especially the things that they're not right on.

The biggest example being the IRS. They also targeted groups with key words like "Progress", "Occupy", and "Fairness" in them. So they were going after major groups to make sure that non-profit political organizations remained non-profit. When this truth came out, other news outlets covered it a lot less because it wasn't targeting conservatives in the way that the Bush administration would hire and fire US Attorneys depending on how aggressively they went after liberal groups. But Fox keeps on truckin' because they're victims.

This is a lot like when, a few years ago, some kids went up the street at around 3a slashing tires. I called my little brother for help and he said "Well, why did they slash your tires?" "They went up the street and slashed the tires of about 30 cars." "Yeah...but why did they slash YOUR tires?"

Obama will never EVER win with Fox News. He will never satisfy them. He will never make them happy. He could resign and say that Fox News convinced him to and, in the years to come, they'll just keep on trashing him. And no, MSNBC and CNN are NOT the same.

ko_kyi:He should go on MSNBC where people can ask questions like, "Some think you just care too much for the American people, how do you respond to that?"

While MSNBC's bias is clear, I do find that the data they present is generally accurate, they make fair representations of opposing arguments (hell sometimes they make them sound more reasonable than they actually are), and they absolutely will criticize Obama if he does something they disagree with.